Secretariat Preakness Time to be Reviewed

[TJ]

With new technology comes a new push to set the record straight concerning the official toned down and revised final time Secretariat was harnessed with after the running of the Preakness. TJ

http://www.drf.com/news/secretariats-pr ... commission

[zinn21]

It's about time. Still remains the greatest jaw dropping race I've ever seen. That clubhouse turn run has never been duplicated..

[Jorge]

Hope that they thoroughly explain with today's 1/1000 of a second precision the new method to be employed. I understand that if the new findings are factually and mathematically explained with an objectibe base of comparision as a background, everybody will have to accept the result.

There is another favorable point for doing it these days (2012) I guess, namely, no one's track record will be affected or erased. That was not the scenario back during the late 70's.

So, this seems like a laudable idea.

[Heidilady]

It's about time..

I see what you did there.

[Bill from WA]

http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/ ... e-a-record

[TJ]

http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/70679/secretariats-preakness-time-a-record

Hi Bill,
This was a very long time coming, but I'm glad it came to pass while Penny Chenery was here to see it happen. TJ

[Whirlaway]

For more than two hours, the racing commission heard testimony, backed by modern technology to prove Secretariat’s time was actually faster than the Preakness record of 1:53 2/5, set by Tank's Prospect in 1985 and matched by Louis Quatorze in 1996 and Curlin in 2007.


Maybe they should use their "modern technology" to determine how the track was playing that day - how many clicks fast or slow and adjust the time accordingly. Same goes for the Derby and the Belmont. Only when the time is adjusted for the variant can we know for certain the actual time. Not takin' anything away from Big Red mind you, he was a fine a thoroughbred as there eve was, just would like to know how fast he really was.

[TJ]

For more than two hours, the racing commission heard testimony, backed by modern technology to prove Secretariat’s time was actually faster than the Preakness record of 1:53 2/5, set by Tank's Prospect in 1985 and matched by Louis Quatorze in 1996 and Curlin in 2007.


Maybe they should use their "modern technology" to determine how the track was playing that day - how many clicks fast or slow and adjust the time accordingly. Same goes for the Derby and the Belmont. Only when the time is adjusted for the variant can we know for certain the actual time. Not takin' anything away from Big Red mind you, he was a fine a thoroughbred as there eve was, just would like to know how fast he really was.

Hi Whirl,
Seems you have a disconnect as to what a track variant is....it isn't an arbitrary adjustable number it stays constant once it is established for that days races. There was a tele-timer malfunction for one race Preakness day....unfortunately it was the Preakness.....so the raw time has now been adjusted to the correct time thanks to modern technology....all the modern technology in the world will not change the track variant, which remains the same as it was published in the racing form pps's. If the tele-timer malfunctioned for all the races on the Preakness card then the track variant would and could be easily adjusted...but it was established that did not happen, the times for all the other races on Preakness day were correct. The track variant at Pimlico on Preakness day was 13....actually slower than it was at Churchill for the Derby....Derby day the variant was 10. TJ

[Whirlaway]

TJ,

Thanks for the input here, hopefully you can teach me a thing or two.

I always thought this an interesting and fascinating subject - how fast did the horse run when the raw time is adjusted for the condition of the track. Was the track fast, neutral or slow and what role did the condition of the racetrack play in the final time. If the track was fast, how fast was it and if fast how to then adjust the raw time. If the track was slow, how slow was it and if slow how to adjust the raw time. Of course, if the track is neutral how do we know it is in fact neutral?

What are your thoughts on raw time adjusted for the condition of the track?

[ElPrado]

He just told you. The times of the other races were normal. The time for the Preakness was a track record. The timer malfunctioned for the Preakness. Timed by modern methods it was even faster than hand timed.

[TJ]

TJ,

Thanks for the input here, hopefully you can teach me a thing or two.

I always thought this an interesting and fascinating subject - how fast did the horse run when the raw time is adjusted for the condition of the track. Was the track fast, neutral or slow and what role did the condition of the racetrack play in the final time. If the track was fast, how fast was it and if fast how to then adjust the raw time. If the track was slow, how slow was it and if slow how to adjust the raw time. Of course, if the track is neutral how do we know it is in fact neutral?

What are your thoughts on raw time adjusted for the condition of the track?

Hi Whirl,
This feels like Deja Vu...Nov. 2010??....I know where this will end up as we went through this more than a year ago...seems like we might get back to the piecemeal questions and back and forth banter which we did when we first discussed it under another banner....so the easiest way to do this is click on the link and read it all over again....everything and a whole lot more was discussed.....all your questions should be answered. TJ

http://www.pedigreequery.com/forum/view ... ecretariat

[zinn21]

To sum things up here are Secretariat's times for the Triple Crown Races:

The Kentucky Derby (1:592⁄5), the Preakness Stakes (1:53) and the Belmont Stakes (2:24)..

I doubt we will see any Triple Crown horse come close to these times ever again...

[ElPrado]

Not in a 5 week span, anyway.
The way they are trained now, we're lucky to see a horse run in all three.

[Whirlaway]

TJ,

Thanks for the link.

I'll change my language here to make my point a bit clearer than in the past thread. If ANY horse expends the same amount of energy over the same distance but on a different surface - on a slow surface, a neutral surface or a fast surface, the time for each surface will be different.

The question is, what was the nature of the surface that day: slow, neutral or fast? I don't think anyone has used "modern technology" to begin an inquiry into this question.

[stlouiskid]

I timed the race from three different clips, and it is 1.55 in each one. Would like a better explanation how they are coming up with the faster time.